Toggle sidebar

Draft and UDFA Thread 2017-18

  • Xenforo Cloud is doing server maintenance Thurdsay 13th at 9 AM GMT. Downtime is to be expected during the process. Server changes were implemented recently to cope with the traffic surge last week. This seems to be affecting the user login, so please anyone experiencing this, log out and clear the browser cache. We expect to have this issue solved once the maintenance is complete.
  • We are currently aware of "log in/security error" issues that are affecting some users. We apologize and ask for your patience as we try to get these issues fixed.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Edge said:
I don't know if there's enough evidence for me to pick either direction.

They wanted Petterssen and Glass last year, and both those guys had very good D-1 seasons.

They went with Andersson, and he had a very good D-1 season.

The truth is, with such a large gap in first round picks, we really don't have a clear track record for how the Rangers will navigate the waters we now find ourselves in.

Based on reports, we expect them to be aggressive, but not crazy aggressive. We can somewhat deduce that they value their list and would rather have less picks, but more control, than more picks and more variables. We can reasonably assume they really trust their scouting staff, especially when it comes to their European scouts and their US scouts.

But most things are what we're going to have to find out over the next couple of years.
Click to expand...


I am going on limited stuff as they have not had many 1st recently other than last year

But I doubt Chytil, Skjei, Miller, Kreider were their coveted picks that fell to them. More so I think they made a good choice based on what was left.

I like Andersson and all but I think he was more of a player they coveted given what they passed on, likely their 2nd or 3rd choice but still a player they had higher on their list than most others did.

Similarly, and I know this could just be an outlier, I think they coveted McIlrath given what they passed on to take him. That to me is where my concern really comes into play, I think they let their imagination of what could be but likely was not going to be kind of run wild along side their emotions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wafflepadsave
Off Sides said:
I am going on limited stuff as they have not had many 1st recently other than last year

But I doubt Chytil, Skjei, Miller, Kreider were their coveted picks that fell to them. More so I think they made a good choice based on what was left.

I like Andersson and all but I think he was more of a player they coveted given what they passed on, likely their 2nd or 3rd choice but still a player they had higher on their list than most others did.

Similarly, and I know this could just be an outlier, I think they coveted McIlrath given what they passed on to take him. That to me is where my concern really comes into play, I think they let their imagination of what could be but likely was not going to be kind of run wild along side their emotions.
Click to expand...

I don't think coveted applies to just one guy though.

I think there's usually a short list. Obviously you want to get as high on that list as possible, but the second or third guy on your list isn't perceived as a consolation prize. Especially if you've traded up for that pick. Andersson was HEAVILY pushed for within the Rangers circles.

With Chytil and Kreider, I think they had a very clear idea of what they wanted and took it. But they also knew they could get those guys without moving.

I'm just not really seeing the connection on this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jas and Brooklyn Rangers Fan
I've been saying it for a while now I doubt we make both pics in the twenties. We're going to trade up or we're going to trade for an established player or Prospect. Dante Fabbro, scouts saw him in BCHL when looking at Gropp. Greeley recruited him to BU, Quinn coached him for two seasons. Nashville has no first round pick.

If we trade up for Kravstov the only sensible trade partners seem like #10 & #15.
 
Edge said:
I don't think coveted applies to just one guy though.

I think there's usually a short list. Obviously you want to get as high on that list as possible, but the second or third guy on your list isn't perceived as a consolation prize. Especially if you've traded up for that pick. Andersson was HEAVILY pushed for within the Rangers circles.

With Chytil and Kreider, I think they had a very clear idea of what they wanted and took it. But they also knew they could get those guys without moving.

I'm just not really seeing the connection on this one.
Click to expand...

Coveted I am sort of using as saying I think they had players higher on their lists than they should have been.

Once those players were already picked they went back to something that comes closer to what the other teams probably had if their lists were accumulated and averaged out.

If they knew Kreider and Chytil would be there, I'm okay with that idea, but then it would lead me to question, are there none those players in this draft too?

.
 
Off Sides said:
Coveted I am sort of using as saying I think they had players higher on their lists than they should have been.

Once those players were already picked they went back to something that comes closer to what the other teams probably had if their lists were accumulated and averaged out.

If they knew Kreider and Chytil would be there, I'm okay with that idea, but then it would lead me to question, are there none those players in this draft too?

.
Click to expand...

I kind of view it like buying a car.

You're perfectly happy with the mid-range model and the bells and whistles that come with it. You can drive that car off the lot and not give it a second thought.

But then you see a nicer model, with some extra equipment you'd like and it's just about the same price. Most cases, you take the nicer model at the same price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ori
Edge said:
I kind of view it like buying a car.

You're perfectly happy with the mid-range model and the bells and whistles that come with it. You can drive that car off the lot and not give it a second thought.

But then you see a nicer model, with some extra equipment you'd like and it's just about the same price. Most cases, you take the nicer model at the same price.
Click to expand...


Except the nicer model has to have some downside or else it would not be the same price.

My thoughts are more along the lines of, I think they likely have fallen in love with a certain idea, and the draft can be somewhat dynamic and I'm not sure falling in love with any philosophical idea is the appropriate way to go about it.

Much like when they took McIlrath there was a need within the organization for some grit, much of what I have read post this past season is pointing toward leadership, character, gumption being stuff they think they lacked.

I don't think they should try to address a current perceived need at a draft that is likely several years away from filling that perceived need if it even ever comes to fruition at the NHL level. I'd rather see them go with a more general need, one that is always going to be present, mainly talent.
 
Off Sides said:
Except the nicer model has to have some downside or else it would not be the same price.

My thoughts are more along the lines of, I think they likely have fallen in love with a certain idea, and the draft can be somewhat dynamic and I'm not sure falling in love with any philosophical idea is the appropriate way to go about it.

Much like when they took McIlrath there was a need within the organization for some grit, much of what I have read post this past season is pointing toward leadership, character, gumption being stuff they think they lacked.

I don't think they should try to address a current perceived need at a draft that is likely several years away from filling that perceived need if it even ever comes to fruition at the NHL level. I'd rather see them go with a more general need, one that is always going to be present, mainly talent.
Click to expand...

I think with McIlrath they truly did like the talent there and thought it was going to grow. Yeah they loved the grit, but they also thought they had a defenseman whose feet were going to vastly improve and who was going to progress. Obviously they were wrong.

But I don't know if there's a guy out there who screams left field --- unless they really go off the map and go with Noel. Then we riot.

But when we're talking about Tkachuk, or Farabee, I think it's potentially more a case of this board underestimating skill than the Rangers overestimating it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sarge13, Brooklyn Rangers Fan and Bozle
Edge said:
I think with McIlrath they truly did like the talent there and thought it was going to grow. Yeah they loved the grit, but they also thought they had a defenseman whose feet were going to vastly improve and who was going to progress. Obviously they were wrong.

But I don't know if there's a guy out there who screams left field --- unless they really go off the map and go with Noel. Then we riot.

But when we're talking about Tkachuk, or Farabee, I think it's potentially more a case of this board underestimating skill than the Rangers overestimating it.
Click to expand...


I really like you Edge, but I think they saw Gaborik get mauled with little/no response, they interviewed and fell in love with McIlrath.

I similar think if they are valuing Tkachuk and/or Farabee above where pretty much most of the rankings have them they are falling in love with the idea of leadership/character. Not saying those two do not also have skill, more so I think they would be giving those non skill traits too much weight based on their perceived thoughts that is what they were lacking at the NHL level recently.

I think them perceiving their lack of leadership/character/grit or whatever else is just not the right read, they lacked comparable skater talent to beat the teams who had it.
 
Off Sides said:
I really like you Edge, but I think they saw Gaborik get mauled with little/no response, they interviewed and fell in love with McIlrath.

I similar think it they are valuing Tkachuk and/or Farabee above where pretty much most of the rankings have them they are falling in love with the idea of leadership/character. Not saying those two do not also have skill, more so I think they giving those non skill traits too much weight based on their perceived thoughts that is what they were lacking at the NHL level recently.
Click to expand...

I think that played a role in it, but I don't think it was the only reason.

But I also think the skill of Tkachuk/Farabee compared to the desire for leadership/character is much higher than the skill of McIlrath compared to the desire for grit/toughness.

McIlrath wasn't on very many lists to be taken at the 10 spot.

Tkachuk is usually ranked higher than 9, and Farabee maybe a handful of spots off.

If I throw character/leadership completely out the window, I still like what Tkachuk/Farabee bring to the table.

If I were to throw the grit/toughness completely out the window, I wasn't nearly as high on McIlrath.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brooklyn Rangers Fan and Off Sides
Edge said:
I think that played a role in it, but I don't think it was the only reason.

But I also think the skill of Tkachuk/Farabee compared to the desire for leadership/character is much higher than the skill of McIlrath compared to the desire for grit/toughness.

McIlrath wasn't on very many lists to be taken at the 10 spot.

Tkachuk is usually ranked higher than 9, and Farabee maybe a handful of spots off.

If I throw character/leadership completely out the window, I still like what Tkachuk/Farabee bring to the table.

If I were to throw the grit/toughness completely out the window, I wasn't nearly as high on McIlrath.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree with any of that, if Tkachuk is there at #9 I think that is great, if they can move up to say #13 to get Farabee without paying more than one of their 2nds and say Zucc, I could see that as something that sort of makes sense.

Outside of something like that I just think they can get that same skill level if not higher just by keeping their picks. They may not have the non skill aspects, and again my weighting of those traits is likely lower than many others including most NHL GMS, but I just will never understand that I guess. Mostly because I just don't see this "beacon" (for the lack of a better term) of leadership/character as often beating a more talented team in the playoffs. (it happens but not usually 4 series in a row)

I know lots of people like to say (AV in particular) the NHL, with parity, the teams are so close, if they only had more traits (Dolan: Leadership/Character, he must have got that from somewhere) their team could have done this or that but when I look at it I disagree, it comes down to pretty much the team who had the more talented skaters eventually won.

Augmenting a exceedingly talented group with those other traits here and there is a fair enough idea, but that does not have to come from moving up in a draft to get it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Harbour Dog
Edge said:
But I don't know if there's a guy out there who screams left field --- unless they really go off the map and go with Noel. Then we riot.
Click to expand...
That is about the one thing that would get me irate in this draft. If all of these crazy things begin to happen. The risers start to break into the top 5 or 6 and players begin to drop and then the Rangers choose to continue the insanity and also go off the reservation with a far out pick......(insert name here) and not take one of the top 9 players we have been discussing over the last several weeks. That would really cook my grits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wafflepadsave
True Blue said:
That is about the one thing that would get me irate in this draft. If all of these crazy things begin to happen. The risers start to break into the top 5 or 6 and players begin to drop and then the Rangers choose to continue the insanity and also go off the reservation with a far out pick......(insert name here) and not take one of the top 9 players we have been discussing over the last several weeks. That would really cook my grits.
Click to expand...

There are some picks I can sit here and type a reasonable explanation of, even if it's not my preferred choice.

Noel at 9 would not be one of those times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UnSandvich and Bozle
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom